Macrons “overpopulation because of the poors” narrative is a farce. Overpopulation has long been cited as the principle problem holding back the global South, always as a tool to blame the poor. Take India for example, a nation with a huge poverty issue & culture where “6-7” kids is a social norm. There have been plenty of condom advertisements & even forced sterilisation & even if the goal was achieved and the poorest 20% did stop being born, They only eat 6% of the food, live in 4% of the housing, use 3% of the electricity. The scarcities of these basics are down to distribution not population. Liberals try to sound magnanimous & hide their racism by claiming that those in poverty “Don’t know any better, (the stupid poor)” this couldn’t be any further from the truth. At 3rd world levels of income within global capitalism, having many kids is the “optimal” thing to do, since you become a net producer at age 12 (in most developing nations). The issue is not over population but a neoliberal ideology that simultaneously blames & forces the third world to reproduce to compete in the free market.

Regressive nationalism will get you nowhere. Individualism has killed the individual, allowing liberal capitalism to absorb the self. The very economic and social woes you fear the most, will only be emboldened by this self inflicted isolation, the west has brought on itself. The abandonment of the internationalist mind, is the abandonment of all politics & social progress. ‘Sovereignty’ is just a synonym for being ruled by a few. We can not preach of mutual aid & cooperation if it does not encompass us all. There is no society but a global one.

The path of the nationalist abandons both empathy for your fellow man and hope for a better world. The path he takes is one that secures his own mutual destruction. He rather scurry as parasite to survive the harsh conditions, than build a world that can withstand any disaster. Their naivety interprets us as idealists, when in reality it is them who are blinded by a false utopia. Their conservatism has deluded their senses, allowing the machinery of the state to harvest them while they whine about a life they never had.

Do not be charmed by the snake oil sales man that sells you fear, hate and points you at your brothers and sisters. His serpent tongue only spits a false narrative, to disguise the fact that he too wishes to be a master, rather than a comrade in arms. These foolish brutes only wish to divide and conquer, It is beyond their comprehension to unite & stand together.

Note: [The majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as a form of far-right politics.Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.]

In light of Richard Spencer (goon of the Alt right & self-proclaimed messiah of white power) being punched while on camera; a debate has began to form around whether or not it’s permissible to use violence against Far right members? Well, the answer is simple, yes, it is always okay to punch a Nazi.

Fascism and racism embodies violence; it secures itself ideologically & politically through threat of violent acts & violent beliefs. Parasites like Richard Spencer are not here to present discourse, they are calling people to take up arms for their cause. He buys into the reactionary, liberal left, knowing full well that they will give him the platform to shout his poisonous rallying cry. Scum like the “Alt-right” are nothing new. Fascists have been putting on suits & ties for decades in an attempt to normalise their tribalistic bullshit.

The National Front did the same thing throughout Europe in an attempt to legitimise themselves, as did those laughing stocks of Right wing Britain, Paul Golding & Tommy Robinson whose group of slobbering idiots ‘Britain First’ & the ‘EDL’ both attempted to enter the mainstream. Do you know what these groups have in common, despite their sickening ideologies? They were all dismantled by a violent visceral opposition of Antifa activists. These groups were met by huge counter demos that often broke out into conflicts & fights on the streets, resulting in property damage and injuries on both sides. Not only were these fringe groups physically wounded, but their morale was often broken too, by constantly having their demos dwarfed in size by the opposition that turned up to confront them. Not only this, but the state could not handle the pressure of such groups. It was costing local councils thousands and exhausting local police forces who could no longer guarantee people’s safety. It was this escalation of risk caused by violent direct action that suppressed these far-right groups & inevitably pushed them back into the fringe. Although the ideology still exists & once again the far-right is on the increase in Europe; it was violent protests, not liberal debate that destroyed the material threat from our streets & protected targeted communities from the far-right menace.

The liberal stance of trying to ‘understand fascists’ & give them a right to “free speech” is an historically flawed concept if one recalls the ironic slogan of German liberals before the Nazis took over: ‘We are so liberal that we even grant the freedom to destroy liberty’, and it was made very clear what Goebbels intentions were, when he stated: ‘We have come to the Reichstag in order to destroy it. If democracy is stupid enough to reward us for doing this, this is the problem of democracy.’

By offering Fascists platforms, you legitimise their point; by knocking their teeth out, you force their subjects to be taboo from society. If you attempt rational debate, you allow these cretins to swindle & manipulate their rhetoric & policy. We can see contemporary examples of this in the far-right parties of England, Hungary & France who have been able to do this very thing. Parties like UKIP, Jobbik & Le Pen have gained traction over the years, and increased in popularity amongst the right wing, to the point where they have been able to push policy & frame debates within their own political territories. This has resulted in a spike in hate crimes within the UK & has spread an anti-immigrant sentiment across European borders resulting in death and violence against marginalised communities as well as the abandonment of humanitarian help.

This moralist stance that we must rely solely on pacifism to prove our points is juvenile & ahistorical. Such pure notions do not deserve to be recognised as legitimate opposition or tactics to deal with Fascism. Anti-fascism can be both defensive & proactive. If Richard Spencer wore all black & spoke Arabic, the liberal press would not be debating whether or not it is okay to use violence against him, it would be cheering his defeat. You cannot live complacent in violent societies while simultaneously condemning violence against a system (or body) that perpetuates it. These are pundits who have praised Obama despite the mass civilian casualties which are a result of his drone program. These same people who call foul & give liberal sob stories over Spencer being punched, cheered when Saddam Hussein was hung. Unlike the contradictory take on violence liberals give, Anarchist and Anti-fascist militants do not use violence to reinforce themselves as a dominant ideology, but rather as theatre that co-exists with its theory. Anarchists & socialists are fully aware that punching Nazis one by one does not tackle the root issue of far-right ideologies. It fully recognises that it must rely on political organisation and propaganda as well as its physical resistance. The violent political dissidents of the militant left is as much of a performance as it is practical. A reminder to both the status quo, and the encroaching threats to people’s liberty, that people in large groups still hold real power over the systems & contracts that bind us to obedience.

This is not to say that we should enjoy violence; far from it. “militant anti-fascist violence is an unpleasant method to achieve a greater political goal. It is not fetishized the way that fascism fetishizes violence, and it would be much more preferable to rely on passive resistance; but we cannot guarantee that what Trotsky referred to as ‘flabby pacifism’ will effectively inhibit fascist encroachment. Fascism views passivity as weakness, not as a political strategy; it will crush peaceful protests and the will to resist, and their violence must be met head on.” (Militant Anti-Fascism: 100 Years Of Resistance by M.Tesa). Rather we should see it for what it really is a violent movement in a more violent world.

I should start off by saying that I have no radical malice towards those within the vegan and vegetarian community. I should also state that I am not “Pro -meat”, in fact, I’d argue we all should eat less of it. It should go without saying that we should have some level of animal rights and should all condemn acts of cruelty & unnecessary harm to animals. This is simply a criticism of using this lifestyle for political motive or to argue superior morality.

The main thinking of the Vegetarian movement is rooted in Speciesism, a term popularised by the philosopher Peter Singer. The basis of these philosophical ideas lies within animal rights movement. The argument put forward is that there is no moral justification for human superiority over any other species, and it opposes the rearing of animals for meat, labelling it as unethical. In his book Animal Liberation (1975), Peter Singer describes it as “a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species.” It claims that all animals deserve the same moral rights as our own.

This concept removes us from the food chain and ignores the anthropological connection between other primate species. The term “unnatural” is thrown around a lot when talking about eating meat. This trend within the Vegetarian community has zero basis and is more an emotive response than based in any logic. Of course, thanks to evolution and the miracle of human biology, we can eat and survive off a meat free diet; but that does not make us natural Vegetarians, far from it. In a 2003 article in ‘The new Scientist’, researchers discovered that “Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots and became meat-eaters at the dawn of the genus Homo, around 2.5 million years ago…” It is also proven that through our evolution a meat diet helped shape our species evolution to where it is today. Eating meat and cooking food made us human, the studies suggest, enabling the brains of our pre-human ancestors to grow dramatically over a period of a few million years. In the article ‘Eating Meat Made Us Human, Suggests New Skull Fossil’ by Charles Q. Choi, Live Science Contributor (October 3, 2012), it explains that it would have been biologically implausible for humans to evolve such a large brain on a raw, vegan diet, and that meat-eating was an essential element of human evolution at least 1 million years before the dawn of humankind. To claim eating meat is unnatural seems more anti-science than anti-meat, especially when you look to our common evolutionary ancestors such as chimps, who still have meat in their diets too. Biology and evolution cannot be categorised as unnatural on the basis of moral purity; it is neither progressive or helpful to any cause.

Purely moralist arguments such as this are noble, but all too often equally irrational. Morals and lines of ethics are not always universal. Singer’s writings are clearly influenced by European minds and would be impossible to translate to the Native American tribes, who once practised animal sacrifices. The Yanomami tribe in south Brazil hunt tapir for meat and yet they are far better environmentalists than most vegetarian’s in the western world. It seems odd to claim moral superiority over these people because you avoid dairy products, especially when you most likely contribute to the destruction of the Yanomami’s homes. How many vegetarians/Vegans drive cars that pollute our air or pay their taxes that contribute to landfills and the destruction of rain-forests, yet simultaneously claim that due to the lack of meat in their diet that they are now environmentalists? For many around the world there is not the option of vegetarianism. A market of choice is a first world privilege, and this ideal is smug rather than morally conscious. Rarely does it seem that vegetarians have issue with the ethics of meat itself. One surely cannot argue with its process in human evolution, or its inherent need to some communities. The most common argument (and most legitimate) is ‘Cruelty’. To this I argue with the linguistics of this statement. ‘Cruelty’ is a human conception, one need only watch the work of David Attenbourgh, to see that Nature and the Animal Kingdom can appear barbaric. Yet, we must remember that such concepts are alien to the chicken & the cow. Not because they the lack consciousness per se but, because animals eat each other within an ecosystem and the human ideas of morality and ethics do not apply to other species. The mouse does not hold the cat accountable. From here the argument can only go to the ethics of caging and rearing animals, but at this point the argument is no longer about eating meat but how animal husbandry is formatted. Such things as intensive farming, chemical growth and hormone manipulation in which Vegans/Vegetarians point out as inhumane, have very little to do with eating meat, and are to do with modes of production. Farming and agricultural surplus are a result of capitalism and the industry of farming.